Completely unsuitable for the job. She should save herself and resign the position.

Quote:

Baroness Butler-Sloss hid claims of bishop's sex abuse

The former judge appointed to investigate allegations of an establishment cover-up of child sex abuse kept allegations about a bishop out of the public domain because the 'press would love a bishop'

Baroness Butler-Sloss, a former High Court judge, was put in charge of an investigation into how the Church of England handled the cases of two priests who had sexually abused boys. Photo: PA










By Alice Philipson

12:04AM BST 12 Jul 2014




The retired judge appointed to lead the Government's major review of child sex abuse allegations kept allegations about a bishop out of a report on a paedophile scandal because she "cared about the Church", it has emerged.

Baroness Butler-Sloss told a victim of alleged abuse that she did not want to include the claims because "the press would love a bishop".

It comes days after Lady Butler-Sloss was forced to apologise for "inaccuracies" in a previous inquiry into two paedophile priests.

Bishop Ball, 82, the former Bishop of Lewes and Bishop of Gloucester, was charged this year with indecent assault offences and misconduct in a public office.

During a meeting at the House of Lords in 2011, Lady Butler-Sloss told Phil Johnson that she would "prefer not to refer to him" because he was "very old now" and she wanted the focus of any press coverage to be two priests who were prolific abusers - one of whom was dead and the other in prison.

Related Articles

She said she would mention the allegations in a private report to the Archbishop of Cantebury instead, according to The Times.
Mr Johnson, who was abused by a number of clergymen when he was a choirboy in the Church of England Diocese of Chichester and now sits on a National Safeguarding Panel for the Church, kept a detailed record of the meeting. He said he "felt pressured to agree to exclude information about the bishop from the report".
Simon Danczuk, the Labour MP who exposed the extent of Cyril Smith's child sex offences, said "there is information coming out by the day which suggests she [Lady Butler-Sloss] is unsuitable for the role".
The peer previously made crucial errors during an investigation into how the Church of England handled the cases of two ministers in Sussex who had sexually abused boys.
Eight months after her report was published Lady Butler-Sloss had to issue a six-page addendum in which she apologised for "inaccuracies" which, she admitted, arose from her failure to corroborate information which was given to her by senior Anglican figures as part of the inquiry.
Lady Butler-Sloss said she had always tried to be "fair and compassionate" and had "never put the reputation of any institution, including the Church of England, above the pursuit of justice for vicitms".
A Home Office spokesman said: "The integrity of Baroness Butler-Sloss is beyond reproach and we stand by her appointment unreservedly."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/c...abuse.html

I don't know this blog but it has interesting connections to Butler-Sloss connections. Caveat lector NotW sources for some.

Quote:

Tuesday, 8 July 2014

Butler-Sloss sister of the Attorney General who helped bury the Dickens Dossiers and closed down the investigation into Elm Guest House, to chair abuse inquiry??

[size=12]The Government are wheeling out Establishment figures, intelligence insiders and child abuse apologists to orchestrate another child abuse white-wash with the People paying the bill

Who does Theresa May and Cameron appoint to chair the National child abuse Inquiry but the sister of one of the men who buried the Dickens dossiers!!

Baroness Butler-Sloss is sister to Robert Michael Oldfield Havers, Baron Havers,QC who along with others was responsible for burying the Dickens Dossiers.



Havers an MI6 insider was Attorney General from 1979 to 1987. He was a bitter opponent of Geoffrey Dickens being the Official responsible for not prosecuting Peadophile Sir Peter Hayman M16 and supressed evidence against paedophile traitor Geoffrey Prime of Elm Guest house notoriety. In fact Havers closed down all inquiry and investigation into Elm Guest House.

[B]'Havers defended the decision not to prosecute Sir Peter Hayman,
[B]
Then he

"was called in to examine complaints" against several British

newspapers by Elm Guest House's lawyers.
[B]
[B]
[B]
[B]
[B]Resulting in the papers dropping the Elm Guest House story.
[B]
[B]
[B]Havers had managed to effectively bury [B]the story which
[B]
[B]
[B] allowed the VIP paedophile [B]network's activities to continue
[B]
[B]
[B]without being bothered by press coverage.'



Not only did he bury the Dickens dossiers and other child abuse evidence that came his way he was the CPS barrister responsible for the most horrific miscarriage of justice in the UK as we reported two days ago where it was found the prosecution suppressed evidence.


Havers represented the Crown in two of the most notable miscarriages of justice in British judicial history: the trial and appeal of the Guildford Four and also of the Maguire family (known as the Maguire Seven), all of whom were wrongfully convicted. Collectively, they served a total of 113 years in prison and one of the Maguire Seven, Giuseppe Conlon, died in prison, convicted on the basis of discredited forensic evidence

He set-up these innocent people, with-held evidence from the defence and the jury which resulted in appaling suffering to 11 innocent people and allowed the real terrorists (who are known but have never been arrested) to escape home and free.



Havers and Butler-Sloss are establishment figures of magnitude. They came from a long line Establishment insiders. Their father Sir Cecil Havers was the evil judge who condemned to death a battered woman who was hanged because he would not allow the jury to hear about her physical and sexual abuse at the hands of the man who died.

And it gets worse! Baroness Butler-Sloss's [B]husband is a paedophile, another of our great judiciary His Honour Joseph Butler-Sloss admits 'using' prostitutes in England and in Kenya. What even the News of the world did not print was that he did not care how old they were and many were child prostitutes Butler-Sloss said "It's not at all expensive. You pay 300 Kenyan shillings (£10) and they ask you for ten bob (30p) for the white man" He could not give a dam about exploiting poor black children.


Finally Baroness Butler-Sloss, as is self evident, is a member of the House of Lords the same Westminster House connected by a corridor to Parliament. The very Westminster House who's members she would be investigating. If that is not enough she once stood as a Conservative candidate for election to Parliament.

And if it could not get more obvious Butler-Sloss was Chairman of the Independent Security Commission which is "To review vetting of those who belong to the Royal Households, those working with them, or who otherwise gain access to Royal residences" She would have overall a responsibility for vetting serial pedophile Sir Jimmy Savile. She is an intelligence insider, she knew Savile was a paedophile and is part of the child abuse cover-up squad. In fact Butler-Sloss far from heading this important inquiry into elite child abuse she should be under the Inquiries investigation.

Do they think the British public are compliant idiots. By appointing Butler-Sloss knowing her brother was also responisble for burying the Dickens Dossiers and the Elm Guest House investigation they are putting up two fingers to the British People. They are also giving insider elite paedophiles the big green light.

Worse May and Cameron are now implicated in the cover-up they claim to be exposing.

We must not allow this whitewash to happen we must fight these evil men and women who cover-up child abuse. If we do nothing then nothing will change! Bulter-sloss as head of our child abuse inquiry will betray the survivors and condem our children to continue to suffer rape and sexual abuse at the hands of the Establishment elite.

Please sign this petition to get rid of the Butler-Sloss


[/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/SIZE][B][B][B][B][B][B][B][B][B][B][B][B][B][B][B][B][B][B]

https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/a...are-button

[/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B]

http://google-law.blogspot.com.au/2014/0...neral.html

Tony Blair's minister accused of helping convicted paedophile to foster young boys

• Jul 07, 2014 06:00
  
• By Tom Pettifor
  

The latest allegations over the politician - later a minister in Tony Blair's Government - have been declared 'shocking' by campaigning MP Tom Watson

Allegations: Abuser Michael John Carroll was supported by a paedophile politician When the phone rang in the Southwark social services department in South London the caller is believed to have come straight to the point.
He is claimed to have enquired about a Michael John Carroll's failed application to foster two brothers who had been taken into care from a troubled family.
Carefully choosing his words the rising star in the Labour Party is alleged not to have put direct pressure on the officer but still made clear he was unhappy about the refusal.
Southwark had turned down the request because Carroll was a convicted paedophile, a new witness has claimed.
The Labour politician's call was just one part of what appears to have been a concerted and involved effort by several influential people to secure permission for Carroll to be a foster carer.
He was employed by Lambeth council in South London as a children's home manager despite him having a conviction for sexually abusing a 12-year-old boy twenty years earlier.
The offence had come to light in 1986 when the Carrolls made their original application to Croydon council, where they lived, to become foster parents. It was refused and Lambeth were made aware of the offence leading to a disciplinary hearing headed by their then assistant director of social services David Pope in May that year.
Carroll received just a written warning after insisting his conviction was a "boyish prank" and was allowed to remain in charge of the children's home. Mr Pope did not respond when asked about the case last month.
Carroll and his wife wanted to foster the 12 and 14-year-old boys who had been on holidays with them to North Wales.
Lambeth had been considering the application but in summer 1986 they allegedly referred it to neighbouring Southwark council for an independent decision.
A new witness has told Labour MP Tom Watson that a Southwark social worker was given the case and advised it should be halted because of Carroll's conviction. This was allegedly agreed by a senior official.
Southwark then made clear in writing to Lambeth that they were concerned that he was still in charge of a children's home, the witness has said.
It is claimed that this decision led to intense pressure being applied on Southwark officials by Lambeth and a person close to the Labour politician allegedly contacted officers twice about the case before paying them a visit to demand they reverse the decision.
When they refused to budge, the Labour figure made the phone call.
Mr Watson said: "It appears that the understandable concern amongst Southwark officials was that Lambeth was employing a convicted paedophile to run a children's home and while allegedly pushing for him to be allowed to foster two boys. The witness has told me that the Southwark vetting process was ended with a refusal which clearly went down badly with some."
Despite being blocked by Southwark, Lambeth's executives continued to back the couple's application and took the case to another neighbouring borough, this time Wandsworth. A source who was close to the Wandsworth team has confirmed that they were never told about Southwark's previous involvement.
An officer from Lambeth social services allegedly phoned a Wandsworth official and asked him to falsify documents relating to Carroll's criminal conviction before they were put before the fostering committee.
But the boys' social worker at Lambeth threatened to resign unless Carroll's access to them was stopped.
Instead, four senior Lambeth officers recommended allowing Carroll and his wife June, also a residential social worker, to become the boys' official "aunt and uncle".
Though the fostering application was rejected by Wandsworth, in December 1990 Lambeth began paying the Carrolls £67.85 a week to look after one of the brothers at their home.
Carroll was finally dismissed in 1991 for squandering his home's budget on alcohol and cigarettes while the children were often eating out-of-date food.
The scandal around Lambeth's employment of Carroll and attempts to help him foster the boys resulted in an independent inquiry in 1993.

Daily Mirror
Convicted paedophile Michael Carroll A report produced by Richard Clough, then general secretary of the Social Care Association, accused Lambeth officers of gross unprofessionalism.
But sources close to Mr Clough have said he was never told about Southwark's involvement in the case and last night Mr Watson called for an investigation into the apparent cover up by Lambeth.
Mr Watson, who has passed the new witnesses information to Scotland Yard, said: ""The allegation that Lambeth failed to disclose their contact with Southwark to Mr Clough's public inquiry is shocking.
"A fully independent investigation must now be set up to find out what exactly happened and who was responsible.
"It also appears that a politician put pressure on social services professionals to allow a convicted paedophile to foster two vulnerable boys.
"Lambeth were effectively shopping around for a council that would allow Carroll unrestricted access to these boys. As this was going on he was able to informally foster them and take them away on holiday.
"This dark chapter in the history of Lambeth must be fully investigated to get justice for the people whose lives have been destroyed by Carroll and all those who facilitated his offending.
"Carroll was able to sexually abuse children because Lambeth, who were responsible for their care, allowed him to do it. The question is who was protecting him and why?"
Anna Tapsell, whose campaigning sparked the Clough report when she was the the Labour chairwoman of Lambeth's social services committee, said: "I thought I'd seen everything but these allegations are shocking. However, I am encouraged that the truth is now going to emerge despite the authorities efforts to keep things under wraps. It appears a lot of people are beginning to realise that the sexual abuse of children goes well beyond a few TV stars and deep into the political arena."
Mr Clough questioned in his report why Lambeth went to "extraordinary lengths" to enable the Carrolls to officially, and unofficially, foster the children.

Lambeth Town Hall Carroll - whose wife died of breast cancer in 1993 bought £500,000 hotel in Chirk, near Wrexham, after leaving Lambeth. He currently lives in another half a million pound house close to Wrexham.
Mr Watson was contacted by the new witness after he read our story in April that police were told in 1998 that the Labour politician made evening visits to Carroll's flat in Angell Road children's home in the 1980s.
Lambeth officials suspected a cover-up when detective Clive Driscoll was removed from the case and given other duties in November 1998.
Carroll was jailed in 1999 for 10 years over a string of child sex attacks dating back three decades.
The latest shock developments follow Labour MP Simon Danczuk's claims Westminster politics is the "last refuge of child sex deniers".
Mr Danczuk has called for a Hillsborough-style inquiry into historical abuse including the Daily Mirror's revelations that an establishment cover-up blocked a police investigation into child sex claims against the Labour politician.
The Met police are currently examining new criminal allegations linked to Lambeth care homes but are refusing to investigate the cover up revelations. They have also failed to refer it to the police watchdog and the Home Office have also refused to investigate.
Lambeth council said in a statement last night: " Documents in our archive from this time have not been digitised so they have to be scrutinised manually.
"When we are satisfied that a thorough search has been completed we will be able to answer these specific questions.
"Meanwhile, we would urge anyone with new information to contact Lambeth council or the police."
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ton...ng-3822224

From theneedleblog of which there is a good number of excellent articles on Butler-Scloss's designedly flawed appointment:

Quote:BY GOJAM | JULY 9, 2014 · 1:08 PM
Cleveland- Unspeakable Truths': Film And Comment From The Filmmaker.

With the appointment of Baroness Butler-Sloss to head the overarching independent Hillsborough' style Inquiry into historical child abuse allegations, and much being made of her previous chairmanship of the Cleveland Inquiry into child abuse scandal during the late 1980s, it seemed like a good opportunity to post up Tim Tate's excellent and informative film, Cleveland- Unspeakable Truths' which I highly recommend readers of this blog watch.
I'm also very grateful to Tim, who produced and directed the film, for the comment below in relation to the Cleveland Inquiry chaired by Baroness Butler-Sloss, and allowing me to reproduce it here.
"When Elizabeth Butler-Sloss headed the Cleveland Enquiry she allowed Whitehall to set a remit which excluded the key question: how many of the 121 children had been abused. To that extent the Enquiry (which cost £5 million) was somewhat pointless. It also and rather strangely took evidence from an advocate of paedophilia Ralph Underwager without his views being made clear or challenged. I hope that her new and very much needed enquiry is not hamstrung with a narrowly-drawn remit. And whilst I hope that it takes evidence from the widest possible pool of witnesses, if paedophile rights advocates are to have their say they should do so in the full light of understanding about their views and their criminal records (if any)." Tim Tate

<font color="#333333"><span style="font-family: Georgia">

Oops, Conservative Whips using evidence of paedophile activity to blackmail MPs on votes - and the accompanying destruction of that evidence when necessary:

Quote: http://theneedleblog.files.wordpress.com...07/pm1.jpg

Page 2:

Quote: http://theneedleblog.files.wordpress.com...7/pm21.jpg

From spotlightonabuse:

As I said earlier, a safe pair of hands.

Quote:

Why Elizabeth Butler-Sloss must not head the National Inquiry into Organised Child Abuse

July 9, 2014
National Independent Inquiry Into Organised Child Abuse

12 Comments
Butler-Sloss chaired the Inquiry into the arrangements for dealing with suspected cases of child abuse in Cleveland since 1 January 1987 (Report of the Inquiry into Child Abuse in Cleveland 1987 (1988) London. HMSO)
Butler-Sloss presided over a cover up which the system decided was necessitated by the social and political pressures for containment. This was to the great detriment of the children who had actually been abused at that time, to the detriment of children in that position ever since, and to the professionals trying to bring this to light. This was a betrayal because initially we trusted that the Inquiry would be powerful and would want to uncover the truth.
She has never to our knowledge made any public connection between the silencing of professionals by the Inquiry, and what happened to Child Protection in the UK as a direct result of the Cleveland Inquiry. Therefore, we have no confidence in her capacity to bring a neutral stance to this present problem. Despite her demonstrated understanding during the inquiry that many of the children in Cleveland had in fact been abused, she let the system return them home to the likelihood of further abuse. This in our mind was wrong and immoral. There was no excuse, even the one she gave, which was that it was not her remit to decide whether abuse had taken place because the high court was doing that job.
After Cleveland, professionals lost their mandate to intervene to protect children and this legacy has continued to this day. As professionals who were among the first to expose the extent of child sexual abuse we experienced at first hand how a public inquiry is used to allay public disquiet and divert attention from the truth about sexual crime against children. We cannot let this happen again.
Heather Bacon. Former Consultant Psychologist, North Tees Health Authority. Witness to the Cleveland Inquiry
Sue Richardson. Former Child Abuse Consultant, Cleveland Social Services Department. Witness to the Cleveland Inquiry
Authors of Child Sexual Abuse. Whose Problem? Reflections from Cleveland. 1991
What on earth is Lord Elizabeth thinking of? Apart from the idiosyncrasy of calling herself Lord, it is obvious, she should withdraw because her brother is alleged to have closed down an investigation into a senior official. That is not her fault. But it compromises her and it seems intransigent not to know that.
There is another reason that Butler Sloss is not acceptable: she led the judicial inquiry in 1987 into the alleged abuse of 121 children in Cleveland that did not ask or answer the question on everyone's lips were the children abused?
Though she acknowledged that the doctors who had diagnosed severe anal abuse were not always wrong, and that the medical findings were not doubted, she then and thereafter contributed to the vilification of professionals trying to do their job in the face of the evidence and of destructive' police resistance to it.
Worse, her report contributed to the myth that children were the victims not of sexual abuse but of crazed doctors and social workers.
The only American expert she heard was accused adults' advocate Ralph Uunderwager later discredited for proposing that paedophilia could be seen as god's will.'
Her report also contributed to a regime that gave children one chance, and once only, to tell their story, in less than an hour, in a video interview with complete strangers.
Children's evidence was not liberated, it was controlled and constrained and closed down.
Her report was published in 1988. Before the year was out, the report of an eminent group of experts, Action Taken Following the Report of the Judicial Inquiry into Child Abuse in Cleveland' was sent by the Northern Region Health Authority to the Department of Health. It detonated the myth: after extremely thorough and in-depth assessments of the children and families' these experts concluded that 70-75 per cent of the diagnoses were correct. This would clearly be contrary to general public understanding of the accuracy of the diagnoses.'
The Department of Health has never acknowledged this report nor relieved the public of its misconceptions. Nor has Butler-Sloss. That is why whistleblowers and abuse survivors wont want to talk to her.
Bea Campbell, award winning journalist.

Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse...

Also from spotlight on abuse blog:

Quote:Baroness Butler-Sloss and her valuable and important witness'

July 12, 2014
Cleveland, National Independent Inquiry Into Organised Child Abuse

3 Comments
American child abuse expert' Ralph Underwager gave evidence, oral and written, to the Cleveland Child Abuse Inquiry in 1987 and was described by the chairman, Lord Justice Butler-Sloss as a "valuable and important witness." In his oral evidence he asserted the following as proven by research:-
- Abused children are not secretive: cannot feel shame or embarrassment before the age of 9 or 11
- The recidivism rate for abusers is 1% to 2%
- Anal assault was the most rare and infrequent form of abuse and then only occurs with perpetrators who are "rather crazy"
- Abused children are not threatened
- 5% of claims of abuse are probably well founded, as judged by the conviction rate
- There is no therapeutic benefit in an abused child expressing their feelings afterwards to a psychiatrist. He said he regarded his views as mainstream.
Recently Dr Underwager said in an Internet exchange that he had treated victims of sexual abuse since 1953 and in all that time had never met one who blamed themselves for the abuse by thinking they had invited the abuse or was a bad person.
Ralph Underwager and his wife, Hollida Wakefield believe that "ill founded, intrusive, and destructive state intervention in the lives of families and individuals under the cloak of saving children from abuse is a serious widespread problem."
(Accuracy About Abuse Info Sheet 8, September 1995. By Marjorie Orr)
Ralph Underwager

Ralph Underwager was exposed by an interview he gave to a European paedophile magazine called Paidika, in which he said child sexual abuse was "God's Will".
Here are some extracts from the interview, which can be found here:
Underwager: Paedophiles can boldly and courageously affirm what they choose. They can say that what they want is to find the best way to love….Paedophiles can make the assertion that the pursuit of intimacy and love is what they choose. With boldness they can say, "I believe this is in fact part of God's will
Paidika: Is choosing paedophilia for you a responsible choice for the individuals?

Underwager: Certainly it is responsible. What I have been struck by as I have come to know more about and understand people who choose paedophilia is that they let themselves be too much defined by other people. That is usually an essentially negative definition. Paedophiles spend a lot of time and energy defending their choice. I don't think that a paedophile needs to do that. Paedophiles can boldly and courageously affirm what they choose. They can say that what they want is to find the best way to love. I am also a theologian and as a theologian, I believe it is God's will that there be closeness and intimacy, unity of the flesh, between people. A paedophile can say: "This closeness is possible for me within the choices that I've made."
Paedophiles are too defensive. They go around saying, "You people out there are saying that what I choose is bad, that it's no good. You're putting me in prison, you're doing all these terrible things to me. I have to define my love as being in some way or other illicit." What I think is that paedophiles can make the assertion that the pursuit of intimacy and love is what they choose. With boldness, they can say, "I believe this is in fact part of God's will." They have the right to make these statements for themselves as personal choices. Now whether or not they can persuade other people they are right is another matter (laughs).

See also: Ralph Underwager and the Cleveland child abuse inquiry

The bloody awful and, for me, completely compliant journalist interviews Liz Davies -- who mentions yet another missing paedo file; this one was handed to then Conservative Home Secretary, Douglas Hurd.

Quote:JULY 11, 2014Shifting beliefs: The need to listen to child protection experts

Liz Davies, Matthew Parris

A fascinating discussion between Matthew Parris (columnist and former Conservative politician) and Liz Davies (front-line child protection social worker from London Metropolitan University) about the forthcoming national inquiry into child sexual abuse was broadcast yesterday on the Spectator blog (transcript below). It was fascinating partly because of Liz Davies' recounting of how her investigations into child abuse and murders of children were stopped by unknown senior people, and partly because of Matthew Parris' refusal to accept that what Liz Davies was saying might be true. Although as Matthew Parris had just published a Spectator article called What kind of idiot tries to stand in the way of a national child abuse panic? I do' and subtitled I know the rumours. I think they're mostly nonsense. I don't expect a fair hearing' (pay-walled) he perhaps found it impossible to allow himself to be convinced by the evidence Liz Davies was setting out.
Putting Matthew Parris's individual views aside, what I generally took from the discussion was a reminder that many people don't yet accept that the organised sexual abuse of children has happened and is still happening, and that when the abuse is carried out by powerful and influential people it tends to get covered up, even after the abusers are dead.
We can't expect the new CSA inquiry to solve this alone, but if it delivers what it is being set up to achieve then it should help push forward the further cultural change we need. We need to acknowledge the issue of organised CSA and find better ways to prevent it and tackle it when it does happen. Victims and survivors shouldn't have to wait 20 years for a national inquiry a National Police Investigation Team should be dealing swiftly with these cases and securing prosecutions. We really need to start listening to child protection experts like Liz Davies and Peter McKelvie.
Discussion on 10 July 2014:
Matthew Parris: It seems to me to very likely be an overheated conspiracy theory. There's certainly a rush to judgement. It may or may not concern senior politicians 30 years ago. All we know is that Geoffrey Dickens, who was a delightful man we all liked Geoffrey very much but he was pretty nuts. He had lots of conspiracy theories. And he did believe Britain was in the grip of a huge paedophile ring involving very senior people in government. I think it highly unlikely that the Home Office would have willfully destroyed the documents that he gave to the Home Secretary. I don't say we shouldn't look into it. I just think everybody needs to calm down a little.
Presenter: Other inquiries, like Hillsborough have ended up being totally vindicated.
Matthew Parris: But the Hillsborough Inquiry was an inquiry by the police into themselves [sic]. If this new Home Office inquiry, which is an inquiry into two separate early inquiries, fails to find a conspiracy then I don't think the people who think these conspiracies exist will be satisfied. They'll then want another inquiry. But you can't win discussions like this with respect to Liz anyone who says calm down we don't need another inquiry' is always going to lose the discussion. And anyone who says let's at least try to get the truth of the matter and lay this to rest' is always going to win the argument, and so you'll get inquiry upon inquiry upon inquiry.
Presenter: I suppose Matthew is saying let's pause, reflect, and come back to this once the media storm has died down and see if we really need an overarching inquiry'?
Liz Davies: It doesn't feel like a rush to me. I've waited 20 years since I became aware of major cover-ups and people interfering with my investigations when I was trying to protect children. And where instructions came from for those interferences I don't know I want some answers.
Presenter: You knew about these particular allegations?
Liz Davies: I was investigating many, many allegations of sexual assaults of children and murders of children. I was working with the police and then suddenly the police were taken off the investigations into the most serious crimes you can imagine against multiple numbers of children. I had to then go to the civil courts to try and protect them as best I could, but there were no prosecutions against the perpetrators. Thanks to social media I've recently been able to contact those police officers who were removed from the investigations and they've told me their instructions came from very senior police officers. Who's going to investigate that? I've no means to do it. Why did senior police shut down my investigations into the abuse and murders of children? I want to know that I've waited 20 years. I'm not going to stop these are incredibly serious matters.
Presenter: Why do you think it is we have to wait 30 years before we have an inquiry into these things?
Liz Davies: More information's come to light now. Partly through social media a lot more victims and survivors have come forward. My inbox is full every day of people contacting me with stories to tell. But our biggest problem now is having enough police to investigate reports. Operation Fernbridge has only got 7 officers.
Presenter: So what you'd like is a truly overarching inquiry looking not just into politicians but every single child abuse case where justice has not been achieved.
Liz Davies: People like me who've had investigations shut down want answers to those cases. I've tried for 20 years; I've raised the issues through the media. I've tried everything and got nowhere. I want to know who's behind it all. It's not all about politicians it's about abuse of power at the highest level and I want to know who those people are.
Matthew Parris: Well, the highest level is Ministers and you seem to be suggesting they are involved. I personally doubt it but these things have happened. But when you say these investigations were shut down that's not a very neutral phrase investigations are not proceeded with' by the police every day. You say they were shut down at the highest level but the senior police officer responsible will have taken a decision not to proceed. There may be a sinister explanation but it may just be that there wasn't sufficient evidence to proceed.
Liz Davies: I'd been working on cases for months. I'm a very experienced investigator, and I've worked with the police for many years I know when my investigation into very serious crimes has been closed down; when I go to work one day and I'm told by my senior manager "you will no longer have any police with you on these investigations from this day on".
Presenter: Could that be because of a lack of evidence?
Liz Davies: Absolutely not. We were in the middle of collating a mass of evidence. I had to get some children right out of London to secret venues to protect them. The level of investigation was very high and complex and I knew exactly what I was dealing with. Children were being taken all over the country to be abused in different locations by different people.
Presenter: Do you have any confidence that the new inquiry will put these matters to rest?
Liz Davies: No, but I might be able to ask some questions there's nowhere else for me to go. In Islington, 2 or 3 years before I was working there and raising serious issues, Geoffrey Dickens was also raising serious issues that's another dossier which no one is currently looking for. That one went to Douglas Hurd who was Home Secretary at that time.
Matthew Parris: All these children who have, as you say, been taken to different locations to be abused by senior people, you'll presumably be able to find some of them to testify?
Liz Davies: Yes, they will of course come and testify, but we need to have a lot of things in place support systems, witness protection. An inquiry won't solve this it'll get us a bit further. What I've argued for 20 years is that we need a National Police Investigation Team because we need somewhere that people can go where the connections are made across the country. When I went to Scotland Yard with my evidence for Islington I was used by Scotland Yard to go all over the country to liaise with other investigations like North Wales and so on nobody in the police was connecting it all up. I was hearing many names I won't say any of the names here, but many names I was hearing them in the different places I was visiting. Nobody has ever joined those dots up.
Matthew Parris: I won't ask you for names but I will ask you you do have names, and these are very senior people in the world of politics and you are reasonably confident that they have been involved in some of these activities?
Liz Davies: Yes. Some of the names that have come out recently, like Cyril Smith, were no surprise to me. When he died I wondered if anything would come out then. I heard his name for many, many years.
Matthew Parris: So had I. Although I hadn't entirely believed I'd thought perhaps whatever he had done hadn't been that serious or had been exaggerated. So you are right it is possible to be wrong about people, but that doesn't mean there is great national conspiracy involving top people all over the country transporting children to secret locations. I would need a lot of convincing.
Liz Davies: What we need is a proper police investigation into the allegations we know about that haven't been properly investigated or have been shut down over the years. My experience was you could so much, get to a certain level and it all got shut down, and I've had that time and again. We need more police resources, more social workers. And can I just say that what we're talking about is organised abuse of children and last year this government got rid of all the statutory guidance on this. They got rid of the definition of organised child abuse' and the means of investigating it. We're losing our tools for dealing with this.
Matthew Parris: I'm not here to defend Ministers but I don't think it's fair to say we got rid of all the means of investigating organised abuse.
Liz Davies: They've got rid of the policy that stated how police and other agencies should investigate organised child abuse.
Matthew Parris: Who are these senior police who you say are consistently shutting down every investigation the moment you get somewhere? It seems unfeasible in this day and age that a chief constable in a case where there is evidence of appalling abuse to young children would stop the investigations because they were under pressure from some national network.
Liz Davies: Well, you'd have to ask them wouldn't you? I wasn't operating at that level. I don't know who these people are. All I can tell you is what I know absolutely happened in my role, being paid to protect children, and not being able to protect them in the way I was expected to.

From whatcanidoabout blog

David Guyatt Wrote:Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse...

Also from spotlight on abuse blog:

Quote:Baroness Butler-Sloss and her valuable and important witness'


American child abuse expert' Ralph Underwager gave evidence, oral and written, to the Cleveland Child Abuse Inquiry in 1987 and was described by the chairman, Lord Justice Butler-Sloss as a "valuable and important witness."

Ralph Underwager was exposed by an interview he gave to a European paedophile magazine called Paidika, in which he said child sexual abuse was "God's Will".
Here are some extracts from the interview, which can be found here:

See also: Ralph Underwager and the Cleveland child abuse inquiry

Here is some of the Underwager information we have here:
https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...#post23977
https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...#post23981
https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...#post23845

No more cover-ups thanks to the Daily Star Sunday, writes Labour MP

Labour MP Simon Danczuk praises Daily Star Sunday reporter, Jonathan Corke, for shining a light on cover-ups



By Simon Danczuk/Published 13th July 2014
PRAISE: Simon Danczuk thanks the work of Daily Star report Corke [PA]
No more cover-ups! It's time to shine a light on dirty secrets.
When the Home Secretary stood up in Parliament this week you could almost feel the collective shudder running through Whitehall.
As she announced a national child sex abuse inquiry, one phrase alone would have struck fear into the heart of many a pen-pusher.
The inquiry, promised Theresa May, would be conducted in a spirit of "maximum transparency", a concept so alien to some Whitehall *bureaucrats that she may as well have ordered them to dance around in their underpants.
***CLICK HERE TO SEE THE CPS DOCUMENTS ON THE DECISION NOT TO PROSECUTE CYRIL SMITH***
For far too long, the authorities have managed to keep a lid on some of the darkest secrets in Government and protected establishment paedophiles in the process.
Establishment paedophiles, including MPs, were given a "get out of jail" card and abused children didn't matter. Dodgy reports were fed into the shredder, police investigations shut down, requests for information repeatedly blocked and important files on establishment sex abusers conveniently lost. It's only down to the persistence of journalists such as the Daily Star Sunday's Jonathan Corke that any light at all has been shone on attempts to cover up some of these unforgiveable crimes.
Because of Corke, files on the late paedophile MP Cyril Smith are now starting to see the light of day.
Remarkably, Smith was first investigated in the 1950s. Police continued to investigate him up to 1998 when it was recommended that he be prosecuted. But nothing happened.
The Crown Prosecution Service decided not to prosecute despite police being certain of his guilt.
This is not the first time cover-ups of this kind have been exposed.
Sir Peter Hayman, a *decorated British diplomat, was let off after being found with extreme child porn.
Paedophiles in high places have been pardoned for far too long and public fury demands change.
The inquiry has a difficult task ahead. Judges, politicians and all manner of establishment figures will be looking over their shoulders.
It's time the truth caught up with them and a clear message sent out. No one is above the law.
'*The CPS released the documents to the Daily Star Sunday under the Freedom of Information Act'

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-n...-Labour-MP